Catholic Sensibility

Good word from the pastor this weekend at Mass, who, when announcing tomorrow’s liturgy, said that while it is not a holy day of obligation in our diocese, it remains a holy day of opportunity. At 10:00 tonight at the church we’ll have another opportunity–an all saint’s vigil. It will be interesting to see what the student liturgy team devised for this. I gave them two options and I wasn’t consulted on particulars. Any plans for the holy day in your spiritual  life?

Once everyone is seated after the opening prayer, the funeral Mass continues pretty much like any other Sunday Mass. Hopefully with good music and the leadership of a choir, if possible. “Depending on pastoral circumstances,” you can proclaim either one or two Scriptures before the gospel reading (OCF 165). The rite doesn’t indicate here, but I would presume the psalm is always done, and the alleluia sung or omitted.

After the homily (166), two sets of intercessions are given in the rite (167). The rubric states that one of seven sets in OCF 401 may also be used, “or new intercessions may be composed.”

“The liturgy of the eucharist is celebrated in the usual manner,” according to OCF 168. And a quick note is given in number 169 that if the final commendation will be celebrated at the place of committal, the procession begins after the post-Communion prayer.

We’ll get back into the OCF at about a post a day from here on out. Meanwhile, any observations about the liturgies of Word and Eucharist as presented here or experienced from the pew, presider chair, or from the music ministry?

I know this piece went up before I left, but I noted the 100-plus comment thread yesterday. I got to about number 25 and thought, “same old, same old,” yawned, and moved on. Wouldn’t serendipity bring me to begin the first letter of Peter toward the end of my retreat, and then dang! That 1 Peter 2:11-17 pops up this morning, talking about relations within and outside of the community of love.

While the internet age might render even one hundred twentysome comments irrelevant by the end of the week, the issues of the Church are still with us. It’s only logical: the internet never seems to solve any problems, just stoke the fires of the opposing camps. But I’m still curious about what these conservative Catholics are doing, and is the Commonweal pushback fruitful?

As you might guess, I’m going to triangulate off the political spectrum–because this is a one-hundred-percent political issue as it’s being framed today; make no mistake. My chief criticism of the Catholic Right is that they are in large part embracing a hermeneutic of subtraction. Michael Voris concedes my point when he ascribes to the surgical approach to the Church’s problems.

In turn I’ll concede it’s a pretty rational approach, though. I have, say, an alcohol addiction. I’ll just cut out the booze. Or better yet, I’ll cut out the people who “force” me to drink: my nagging spouse, my brat kids, my crazy boss. And then when the day is done, I’ll settle in with my only true friend who understands me. The bottle. Jesus nailed it:

“When an unclean spirit goes out of a person it roams through arid regions searching for rest but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my home from which I came.’ But upon returning, it finds it empty, swept clean, and put in order. Then it goes and brings back with itself seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they move in and dwell there; and the last condition of that person is worse than the first.”

The perception is clear, and I think many are misled into thinking that all they have to do is rid themselves of the “unclean spirit” of poor catechesis, bumbling liturgical implementation, polyester dancing nun puppets, and voilà: you get a freshly minted orthodox Catholic, ready for battle, and toked up on all the right blogs.

I suspect more of what’s really amiss is the substitution of an active intellect for the real poverty of the Catholic Church: a deeper union with God. That union is offered. Offered to all believers. It’s not something you can find in books or the catechism or the blog of the month. It’s not something you can find in the new media. More likely, you will have to turn off the phone, the computer, and the tv to get closer.

When I got back into town yesterday, I ran across this quote from the last Pope Benedict, in the last century:

We must earnestly draw the attention of souls to the conditions required for the progress of the grace of the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit–the perfect development of which is found in the mystical life.

Thomas Merton and many others of the century since have quietly, insistently reminded us that a more mystical union with God is rightly the path of any believer. It requires no intellect. It requires no ideology. It is open to anyone who seeks: lay or clergy, man or woman, adult or child, left or right, secure or alienated, blogger or not.

My own impatience with the expression of the hermeneutic of subtraction is that the choice offered is so impoverished. An enormous block of marble is attacked, but instead of pruning to give us a sculpted scene, or even a larger-than-life statue, we are given a fingernail clipping: something acceptable to all the carvers. If that.

Not to deny the heartfelt aspirations of many neoreformers: there is much with which to be dissatisfied these days, both within the Church and without. Unless we are eager to be overrun with demons in multiples, my suggestion is to take a deep breath (literally!) and steer a truer course toward God.

One of the questions that turned up on my retreat was whom to trust. This writer, that writer, this commentary, that commentary, this way, that way: where do you go in all the catholicity presented to us? A simple answer came (another serendipity) as I was finishing up my lectio with 1 John 5:9a:

If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater …

There’s a context as to why this is so, but I want to wrap this up.

So the questions I have of these Catholic convulsions on all sides: with what are you replacing all of these things you concede are demons? And especially if you are espousing radical notions, where is your own radix (root) in all this? Great Church reformers like Hildegard and Catherine of Siena were lay mystics. Their criticism of popes, emperors, “effeminate clergy,” and others in authority was based not on political action of the Karl Rove/Deal Hudson flavor. They were rooted in God, not rotted in people. Where is the excuse for us not to attend to God’s testimony and journey on the mystical way? And for the rest of us, why would we think of paying attention to a non-mystic above a mystic, or above even that small, stirring, nearly hidden voice of God?

I could say that my retreat was a sort of spiritual feast, and there was way too much to digest. Let alone sort through for what was great, good, meh, or something else–at least right now.

Something that popped up very early–not sure from where–was the notion of conducting oneself in ministry. There was a lot of other rich stuff, and I’ll concede I didn’t dwell too much on my role in ecclesial ministry. But John the Baptist was really onto something, wasn’t he?

You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, “I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.”

He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:28-30, NRSV)

Pope, bishop, pastor, staff person, liturgical minister, floor sweeper, feeder of the poor. They can all potentially say (and sometimes they do), “Look at me!” But the attitude I look for as I train students for ministry is something of the friend of the bridegroom, “Look beyond me.”

Naturally, we all fall for that other quote from time to time. Picking it up like a cross and making it our own. “Look beyond me” are words and an attitude for which to strive. I know I’ll be returning to it often as MR3 comes ’round the corner.

More news and insights from the retreat as the days pass, but I thought I’d offer a little teaser and a note to let you know I’m back in the neighborhood. Peace to all, and blessings.

Which will probably never be considered, but here goes:

1. The CDWDS should retreat to the 2008 translation of the MR3, and prepare a like one for the German language. These translations should then be defined as the English and German typical editions never to be used for liturgy, but for translating into the world languages for which there is even less Roman competence than English and German.

2. We should resurrect the 1998 Sacramentary, already approved by the English-speaking bishops’ conferences and implement this by Advent 2012.

3. An open process should begin, and spend ten years to upgrade the Latin edition of the Roman Missal, implementing many suggestions from bishops for a greater harmonization between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This consultation should gather prayers and rituals composed in the vernacular from around the world, and be edited and incorporated into a library of rites fully congruent to the three-year Lectionary cycle, and the various needs of Catholics from around the world.

4. MR2 is a perfect interim vehicle for English-speaking Catholics to undertake a generation-long upgrade of the celebration of Mass: singing presidency, preaching workshops, and church-sponsored efforts in composing for the liturgy, and also the development of performing groups of high excellence (and various styles) to demonstrate the ideals of sacred music fully integrated into the liturgy.

5. By 2022, I think we’d be ready to translate MR4 and add English-language adaptations approved by the bishops, but not yet approved for universal use in the Roman Rite.

6. Repeat this renewal of the Roman Missal about twice a century, and maintain the gathering of riches of music, texts, and rituals from Catholics around the world. Rome works better when it adopts other forms as its own rather than wall in the museum riches.

There: a nice, neat liturgical manifesto to usher in a period of quiet on this blog as I head off to retreat. If there are any major liturgical developments, don’t bother to call me; my cell will be turned off. I won’t be online. I don’t even want to see a tv screen for the next six days. I’m going to enjoy the Liturgy of the Hours, some inspirational reading from the Scriptures and a few spiritual masters, and blessed silence.

Probably the first time in ecclesiastical history that someone is holding a pep rally for the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Not bad for a guy who never saw a schism he couldn’t widen.

As a cardinal, Archbishop Burke will not only be elevated as one of the princes of the Church, but will be placed among the ranks of those who could become our future pope.

A point of correction on this: it’s more a custom than a fact of canon law that one must be a cardinal to become pope. There may be more corrections afoot, but I had to duck out of there quick with all the pom-poms flying about.

Thanks for the comments taking me to task on my characterizations of some conservatives. Over the past few years, I’ve been especially careful in my criticism of ideologies within the Church. You can pretty much read what I write as what I mean–no more, no less.

I’m far from the belief that all liberals are good and all conservatives are bad. That would be just silly.

Within the greater Church, there is a spectrum of people who love and/or know the liturgy: from deeply to fairly shallow. Along that line, there are also people who have what I would consider a conservative worldview, and others more progressive. With varying degrees of shading between, there are liberals who are pretty ignorant about liturgy, conservatives who have a refined and intelligent view of it, progressives devoted and knowledgeable, and alas, liturgically-ignorant conservatives.

Double alas that many people in liturgical power in the Catholic Church are in that fourth category. Certainly the meddlers of the English interpretation of MR3. The CDWDS. Probably the pope. I don’t think there’s a malicious intent with these people. I think they mean well for the good of the Church. I also happen to think that liturgically-ignorant liberals mean well too, by and large.

Having more number twos in play would be an improvement. The full spectrum between two and three would be ideal.

Now, a warning about all this. Categories are helpful to a limited extent. They operate in the larger realms of sociology. They will often fail when dealing with individuals. Individuals, I’ve found, will surprise with a broader spread among ideology, devotion, knowledge, attitudes, and opinions. When I correspond with individuals I’ve encountered on the internet, I’m a lot more careful to the nuances they bring to a dialogue.

But on the other hand, I won’t shy away from characterizing the Liturgiam Authenticam movement as being more ignorant of liturgy, and far removed from three important aspects of liturgy: beauty, pastoral ministry, and scholarship. Then you top it all off with bureaucratic nincompoopery and its a recipe for disaster. Except that pastors and liturgists will be pulling this puppy from the jaws of defeat. Eventually.

If the bishop in question at that last link thinks we might be pushing implementation off to 2012, we’ll have a fine example of catholicity in the English-speaking world. Tourists beware.

- South Africa began their implementation in 2008.

- New Zealand is set for 2010, and even has MR3 translated into Maori, which is a fine trick to be managed.

- On New Year’s Day 2011, you can sing the new Mass settings in Australia, but everything else gets phased in through the year.

- Then the US in 2011 or 2012, supposedly.

Advocates for uniformity have to be dropping their pom-poms to grit their teeth on this, don’t you think?

Paragraphs 131 through 135 in the introductory section, “Funeral Liturgy,” covered the background on the introductory rites. In the funeral Mass, the outline looks like this:

Greeting
Sprinkling with Holy Water
[Placing of the Pall]
Entrance Procession
[Placing of Christian Symbols]
Opening Prayer

The bracketed rituals are optional, but nearly always done in the US–at least in my experience in the east and midwest.

The rubric of OCF 158 is instructive:

158. If the rite of reception of the body takes place at the beginning of the funeral Mass, the introductory rites are those given here and the usual introductory rites for Mass, including the penitential rite, are omitted. If the rite of reception of the body has already taken place, the Mass begins in the usual way.

We’ve already covered the option of receiving the body at the church for the vigil. Once received there, the liturgical assumption is that it won’t be taken back to a funeral home–the body will remain until the funeral liturgy. At any rate, the rite or reception is not repeated. The direction to begin Mass “in the usual way” means that the introductory rites will ordinarily consist of the Entrance Procession, Greeting, Penitential Rite, and Opening Prayer–as they would for a weekday Mass. I suppose a Sprinkling Rite would be a consideration, possibly even advisable, especially during Easter. I’ve never seen it done, though. What do our commentators think?

The rubric of OCF 159 describes a greeting from “the door of the church.” The formulas given include the “long form” of 2 Corinthians 13:14 used often at Sunday Mass, plus three of the forms given in OCF 69. The option, “in similar words,” is also provided.

OCF 160 covers the sprinkling of the coffin. OCF 161, the placing of the pall. The entrance procession (OCF 162) was also described in OCF 133, and the rubric here duplicates the instruction there we’ve already discussed.

A bit of choreography to manage. The rites provide for the optional placing of a Christian symbol (OCF 163 here, OCF 134 in the introductory part) and this is done before the “customary reverence” of the altar.

For the Opening Prayer, the rite instructs:

164. When all have reached their places, the priest invites the assembly to pray.

After a brief period of silent prayer, the priest sings or says one of the following prayers or one of those provided in (OCF 398).

Note that singing the prayer is a preferred option over saying it: it’s listed first.

Four options are provided in the book at this point, three for outside the Easter season, and one for within it. Forty-seven other options are given in section 398 (13 general prayers, one for a pope, two for bishops, three for priests, two for deacons, two for religious, one for a lay minister, also children, young person, parents, married couple, wives, husbands, … well, you get the idea–lots of options).

I’ll reproduce option A from OCF 164 to give you a sample of the quality of these prayers. Definitely a step up from Roman Missal 1, and decidedly different from what we’ll see at Sunday Mass with the new translation:

Almighty God and Father,
it is our certain faith
that your Son, who died on the cross, was raised from the dead,
the firstfruits of all who have fallen asleep.
Grant that through this mystery
your servant N., who has gone to his/her rest in Christ,
may share in the joy of his resurrection.

We ask this through …

The mark of ICEL’s work in the 1980′s was a stronger connection to the Scriptures, especially the Lectionary, in the presidential prayers and other texts. While some commentators celebrate receiving the Lord “under our roof” in the English interpretation of MR3, that was not a development of Liturgiam Authenticam. It was already in place with ICEL a generation ago.

It also takes more than one reference to the Bible to strengthen the rites and their translations. It requires attention to detail and an eye for spiritual opportunities I don’t think exists today within ICEL, Vox Clara, or the curia (though I’d be happy to be proven wrong).

At this point, I’ll be pausing in my OCF commentary for about a week. It’s off to retreat tomorrow afternoon. There may be a post or two before then. But maybe not.

Tinkering with the English version of the Roman Missal continues apace. One money quote from Jerry Galipeau’s blog regarding MR3.2:

It will be interesting to see if Fr Z and other champions of accuracy and orthodoxy are willing to go bat for this turkey.

Speaking for myself, I can hardly wait for all this nonsense to die out. Practically every liturgy workshop, conference, and cocktail party in the English-speaking Catholic world has zeroed in on the new translation. Frankly, I’m sick of it. If I want to learn about liturgy, I sure as heckfire don’t want to hear another word on this mess. I almost signed up for a campus ministry conference in Florida this January. I settled on a retreat next week–which I need more than a conference. The same week a big diocesan worship on … what else? … MR3.

Our parish faith formation director was stunned I wasn’t going. They aren’t paying me to present on it, I almost said. I told her I’d go over the issues with her either before or after the conference. She opted for after.

Monday night I presented the MR3 to the parish liturgy commission. Trust me: I did a fair job for the principles behind the new translation. It seems inevitable I’ll be on point for the parish presentation next year. Do you trust me on that one? lol.

The situation with this translation is truly about as bad as I could have imagined it. The conservatives will stick with it, for the most part, because they have little else but loyalty to authority to buck up their lagging spirits. But the erosion of good will is evident. Intelligent conservatives know this deal is incompetent, clumsy, and just plain headscratchable. And most of us progressives needed little convincing this clueless translation was going to set aside beauty and artistry for petty politics. So we have that, too.

Three quick bits on the funeral Mass before we get into the actual red-n-black of OCF 158-176. First, it’s about location, location, location:

155. The funeral Mass is ordinarily celebrated in the parish church.

And the words one uses:

156. The Mass texts are those of the Roman Missal and the Lectionary for Mass, “Masses for the Dead.” The intercessions should be adapted to the circumstances. Models are given in place and in part V, (OCF) 401.

157. In the choice of music for the funeral Mass, preference should be given to the singing of the acclamations, the responsorial psalm, the entrance and communion songs, and especially the song of farewell at the final commendation.

These priorities align with those of the Sunday Eucharist. Makes perfect sense. Sunday is the model for the funeral Mass, just as Easter is the model for Sunday, and the original expression of the Paschal Mystery should guide our own metanoia and awakening into glory. The song of farewell is about as high on the to-be-sung list as anything else, including acclamations. The assumption we’ve been working on all through this document is that the assembly’s singing drives the matter here. Recall that OCF 153 endorses and recommends a choir “whenever possible,” but this is as a service to the leading of the people’s singing.

Archbishop John Nienstedt wades into it in the Twin Cities.

I believe that it’s important that if you’re going to be Catholic, that you have to be 100% Catholic. That you stand by the church, you believe what the church believes and you pass that on to your sons and daughters and your grandsons and granddaughters.

Feeling the heat on his dip into politics and parish closings, the archbishop sure isn’t going to be mistaken for lukewarm. But I’m not sure he sees the potential problem with insisting on high ideals. Not to mention his weak grasp of Scripture. Revelation 3:14-22 relates the whole message to the Church of Laodicea. Verse 17, after the lukewarm comment:

For you say, ‘I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything,’ and yet do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

The smaller, purer church meme sure sounds a lot like this. No need of anything less than 100% pure. No attention either to Jesus’ open invitation four verses later:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.

Anyone can hear the voice of God. Anyone can open the door. Looks like some Scripture study is needed north of the Iowa border.

Four paragraphs describe the Funeral Mass. We begin with a good summary of Catholic belief in the Eucharist:

154. When one of its members dies, the Church encourages the celebration of the Mass. In the proclamation of the Scriptures, the saving word of God through the power of the Spirit becomes living and active in the minds and hearts of the community. Having been strengthened at the table of God’s word, the community calls to mind God’s saving deeds and offers the Father in the Spirit the eucharistic sacrifice of Christ’s Passover from death to life, a living sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of reconciliation and atonement. Communion nourishes the community and expresses its unity. In communion, the participants have a foretaste of the heavenly banquet that awaits them and are reminded of Christ’s own words: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall live forever” (John 6:55). Confident in Jesus’ presence among them in the living word, the living sacrifice, the living meal, those present in union with the whole church offer prayers and petitions for the deceased, whom they entrust to God’s merciful love.

Sacrifice and meal. Balanced. Connection to the Paschal Mystery.

Draw the family to a special level of involvement, the rite instructs:

152. Whenever possible, ministers should involve the family in the planning of the funeral liturgy: in the choice of readings, prayers, and music for the liturgy and in designation of ushers, pallbearers, readers, acolytes, special ministers of the eucharist, when needed, and musicians. The family should also be given the opportunity to designate persons who will place the pall or other Christian symbols on the coffin during the rite of reception of the body at the church and who will bring the gifts to the altar at Mass.

Note that the rite designates the family for “involvement.” Not final decisions. Music ministry is given a deeper treatment, with an ideal situation (choir) and a fallback position (cantor):

153. An organist or other instrumentalist, a cantor, and whenever possible, a choir should be present to assist the congregation in singing the songs, responses, and acclamations of the funeral liturgy.

The choir serves others, according to the rite. While beauty and quality are important standards they should not impede the liturgical standards of beauty and quality, namely, in the expression of Christian faith through ritual.

An interesting proposal from the Armenian Archbishop of Baghdad, Emmanuel Dabbaghian: that all the world’s bishops make an annual pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

The Holy Land is a country of pilgrimage and is where the Lord revealed himself and lived among us. The Lord wishes to be visited, loved, consulted.

Archbishop Dabbaghian suggests the pope coordinate this, but would the pope himself be bound to visit as a gesture of leadership? Would you think such a gesture would stem the Christian exodus from the Middle East?

For many years, I was privileged to have a permanent deacon as my spiritual director. Very early on, I realized I was in good hands. I’ve spent a lifetime struggling with a profound sense of dissatisfaction. I’m dissatisfied with myself. I’m dissatisfied with the Church. The list is longer still: family of origin, education, musical skills, friends, colleagues, politics, hobbies, bosses, institutions … I don’t think I’ve ever let it completely color my life, but on occasion it can get out of control.

Len suggested I treat it as a spiritual gift. Dissatisfaction should be a normal attitude for a Christian in the world. The world is sinful and flawed, and its people don’t do what they should do. But when combined with patience, dissatisfaction has a transformative potential. It can sprout compassion, tenacity, and a pilgrim ethic. I recall the line from my childhood prayer, “… after this our exile …” and it is good to be mindful of this.

It is a bit dismaying to see dissatisfaction running off the rails. A sure sign one has decided to treat an exile as a place of permanent residence is when one suggests a close ally is “defensive” or the people who don’t even bother with you are plain confused.

Beauty and quality are largely subjective experiences. They are enhanced, to a certain degree, by diplomacy and persuasion. Dialogue, on other words. Observers can be invited to return. Perhaps they begin to listen, to encounter more deeply. They make the leap to becoming sympathizers, or eventually, advocates.

The notion that chant advocates can get away with this scenario is plain silly:

1. We have all the answers in church music.

2. You are people are confused, defensive, ignorant, and what we do and say “smacks of evil.” Sometimes more than one of the above.

3. You will now listen to us and adopt our treasured methods.

4. It is better to do what we think is good for your people rather than what you think is good for them.

5. Pay no attention to liturgical law because it’s confusing, and worse: it doesn’t agree with the Church’s ideals.

6. Everything will be fine.

I can agree with step six. But otherwise, really: is this the best case to be made for plainsong and propers? It just sounds like dissatisfaction run amok.